F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules • Hacker News Board

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#941

Post by dhimes » Fri, Dec 15, 2017, 1:02 PM UTC

mcantelon wrote: post #882

blunte wrote: post #876

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. voters did not elect a Republican government. Gerrymandering has given Republicans wins in many places where Democrats would have won in any other universe. Likely rigged electronic voting machines that have no audit trail have given Republicans votes they would not have had. *Targeted voter suppression campaigns have prevented people from voting who would have tipped the scales in favor of Democrats. 2. Republica…

>Targeted voter suppression campaigns have prevented people from voting who would have tipped the scales in favor of Democrats. And the Democrats have spun reasonable measures, such as requiring some sort of identification to vote, as "suppression", possibly so those who aren't citizens can vote. Who cheats more? Who knows. The low-hanging fruit for the Democrats is, however: 1) Prioritize lower/middle class economic…

1) Prioritize lower/middle class economic concerns over progressive identity politics

This. This right here. And I can't get any Dems to pay attention to this.

In the '90s it became popular to "brand" the Democrats as the "liberal elite." I had no idea what they were talking about (and neither did most of the people who were using the term).

But now there is a new term going around- one that makes much more sense: Coastal liberals. I grok this term because I now live in MA. These are Democrats who (although they mean well and have a heart of gold), they truly don't understand a lot of the middle-class, working Americans. They live in white neighborhoods and their kids go to private schools. Nobody in their family every mined coal or built Fords. They really, truly, do not understand what those people are going through. And because of that, they aren't talking to them and they lost them in the election.

This is why we still have an electoral college, and why I actually favor it. It was put in place to help ensure that everybody has a chance of being heard, and the large cities wouldn't be able to run roughshod over the smaller (but very important to our country) areas.

The Dems still aren't talking to those folks. If you watch left-tv (which is damn near unwatchable, I must say), nobody is talking about how to help middle America. Everybody is still talking about "anything but Trump." They should be doing both, and if they don't then Trump is going to win again in 2020.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#942

Post by gerbilly » Fri, Dec 15, 2017, 1:05 PM UTC

What I don't get, is how come the advertising industry isn't opposing this?

How are the ad trackers going to track you across the entire internet now if ISPs are going to partition it into packages?

If you don't get the facebook package, or whatever, doesn't that mean that facebook won't get to know all the other sites you visit?

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#943

Post by sheepmullet » Fri, Dec 15, 2017, 1:05 PM UTC

jmcgough wrote: post #429

tptacek wrote: post #127

The voters elected a Republican government. That a Republican-led FCC would err on the side of under-regulating telecommunications companies is about the least surprising outcome you can imagine. Anybody who told you that lobbying the FCC was going to make a difference here was, whether they meant to or not, selling a bill of goods. As someone who respects but mostly profoundly disagrees with principled Republican la…

> But otherwise, be clear-eyed: elections have consequences. We elected the party of deregulation. Take the bad with whatever the good is, and work to flip the House back. What I'm bitter about is that my vote, as a californian, is worth a tiny fraction of a vote in a swing state. Republican lawmakers have zero incentive to care about me, and red states are overrepresented in congress in relation to their small popul…

> What I'm bitter about is that my vote, as a californian, is worth a tiny fraction of a vote in a swing state.

And? Surely with the money flowing through California you can actually afford multiple providers and in doing so ensure competition.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#944

Post by yters » Fri, Dec 15, 2017, 1:07 PM UTC

bo1024 wrote: post #879

yters wrote: post #239

How will this actually impact me? I saw one graphic which suggested this may make it cheaper for me to pay for just the services I need.

We don't know yet. You might have almost no change, you might find half the internet censored by default. If ISPs wanted to make it cheaper for you to access a simpler level of services, they could have already done so by offering you lower internet speeds and small data caps. They kept prices high because you were willing to pay them and there wasn't (much) competition. They're not going to give up those profits wil…

Can the ISPs actually censor content? On the other hand, I'm not opposed to censoring some things, like porn.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#945

Post by omginternets » Fri, Dec 15, 2017, 1:43 PM UTC

microcolonel wrote: post #100

omginternets wrote: post #14

Europe has it's problems, but I don't regret moving to London. Not one bit. The innovation here is real and tangible, by and large unencumbered by this kind of crap.

> but I don't regret moving to London. Not one bit. The UK, along with all other commonwealth countries, has no equivalent rules to repeal or support.

They also don't have equivalent regional monopolies on telecom infrastructure, so the problem is very much mitigated.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#946

Post by mulletbum » Fri, Dec 15, 2017, 1:54 PM UTC

maxsilver wrote: post #457

komali2 wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been thinking this over for the past couple months, because I was pretty sure this would be the outcome - that we would lose our net neutrality protection. So let's play out the worse case - Comcast, AT&T etc wait out the shitstorm and then start throttling traffic and packaging the internet, releasing cable-esque "plans." Is it feasible to just start running our own fiber to hubs? I want to learn more about the…

> As a private citizen, can I (snip) just lay a super long fiber cable straight to (the internet). Yes. I worked on a startup ISP for a few years, which attempted to do this. It's actually really easy to do : 1) Pick a point where you can get connection to the internet. (Backhaul). This is usually a phone companies central office, but it can also be at a data centre or other point of presence. 2) Run fiber cable from…

Acenteck has been doing this in Michigan for the past few years in the Grand Rapids area. They keep pulling lines to new rural neighborhoods coming in. Basically get everyone on the block in one shot because Comcast/Charter have such a bad name.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#947

Post by JustSomeNobody » Fri, Dec 15, 2017, 1:56 PM UTC

mcantelon wrote: post #882

blunte wrote: post #876

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. voters did not elect a Republican government. Gerrymandering has given Republicans wins in many places where Democrats would have won in any other universe. Likely rigged electronic voting machines that have no audit trail have given Republicans votes they would not have had. *Targeted voter suppression campaigns have prevented people from voting who would have tipped the scales in favor of Democrats. 2. Republica…

>Targeted voter suppression campaigns have prevented people from voting who would have tipped the scales in favor of Democrats. And the Democrats have spun reasonable measures, such as requiring some sort of identification to vote, as "suppression", possibly so those who aren't citizens can vote. Who cheats more? Who knows. The low-hanging fruit for the Democrats is, however: 1) Prioritize lower/middle class economic…

Number 2, I think, really hurt Dems in the last election. Enough Dem voters didn't like Clinton's "I deserve to win" attitude[0]. Those voters would have voted easily for Bernie.

[0] Nobody deserves to be President. We choose.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#948

Post by otalp » Fri, Dec 15, 2017, 1:58 PM UTC

dhimes wrote: post #941

mcantelon wrote: post #882

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Targeted voter suppression campaigns have prevented people from voting who would have tipped the scales in favor of Democrats. And the Democrats have spun reasonable measures, such as requiring some sort of identification to vote, as "suppression", possibly so those who aren't citizens can vote. Who cheats more? Who knows. The low-hanging fruit for the Democrats is, however: 1) Prioritize lower/middle class economic…

1) Prioritize lower/middle class economic concerns over progressive identity politics This. This right here. And I can't get any Dems to pay attention to this. In the '90s it became popular to "brand" the Democrats as the "liberal elite." I had no idea what they were talking about (and neither did most of the people who were using the term). But now there is a new term going around- one that makes much more sense: Co…

> I can't get any Dems to pay attention to this.

Because they are all funded by corporations who want, as Alan Greenspan put it, "worker anxiety" to keep profits high. They gave Trump 37 billions more in the military budget than he asked for - authorising a level spending on par with the height of the iraq war, but will balk at Bernie Sanders's suggestions for universal healthcare or free tuition because it's unaffordable.

It also helps that the republicans are horrific towards anyone who isn't a straight white male: Roy Moore overwhelmingly won the white vote despite talking about how America was greatest during the times of slavery, how he believes all the amendments after the tenth were mistakes(these include allowing woman and black people to vote), not to mention the rampant homophobia.

Trump is the absolute worst thing that can happen to middle America. His policies hit the middle and lower class whites the worst. But they will _feel_ safe and secure with a giant wall and a ban on refugees.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#949

Post by ataturk » Fri, Dec 15, 2017, 2:02 PM UTC

blunte wrote: post #876

tptacek wrote: post #127

The voters elected a Republican government. That a Republican-led FCC would err on the side of under-regulating telecommunications companies is about the least surprising outcome you can imagine. Anybody who told you that lobbying the FCC was going to make a difference here was, whether they meant to or not, selling a bill of goods. As someone who respects but mostly profoundly disagrees with principled Republican la…

1. voters did not elect a Republican government. Gerrymandering has given Republicans wins in many places where Democrats would have won in any other universe. Likely rigged electronic voting machines that have no audit trail have given Republicans votes they would not have had. *Targeted voter suppression campaigns have prevented people from voting who would have tipped the scales in favor of Democrats. 2. Republica…

Based on my experience, it is Democrats who cheat in elections, not Republicans. In fact, Republicans have been far too nice overall (like Norm Coleman conceding to Al Franken in the midst of obvious vote tampering). Conservative principles are being washed away to everyone's detriment. We can't survive as a nation by always falling to the least common denominator among us.

I do agree that far too many Rs are in bed with monopolistic corporations--actual conservatives have been fighting for years to end the hegemonic GOPe. You saw it with the TEA Party. There's nothing quite like being cut off at the knees by Obama's IRS, though.

GOPe and DNC colluded to silence Ron Paul and the TEA Party and made peaceful reforms impossible. Trump is the result of all that. Had Trump not gotten elected, and had the socialists begun to really run roughshod over the hard-working conservative people who believe in limited government, low taxes, and disfavor the welfare state, you would be seeing something far worse than Trump right now. So count your blessings.

In time, you will come to realize that there is only one major party in the US--the Party of Big Government. They are all on the same side, which is the side attempting to snuff out individual liberty in favor of corporatism and turning all regular citizens back into serfs.

I read a ton of message forums. There is a tremendous undercurrent of disaffected Americans who are totally fed up to the point of hoping for a violent revolution. They are not people who are quick to violence (they are not leftists after all) and they understand that their chances for victory are slim. But they also understand that making a statement is becoming necessary. Trump becoming elected has delayed that revolt, for now.

Re: F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

#950

Post by belorn » Fri, Dec 15, 2017, 2:07 PM UTC

kurthr wrote: post #890

mcantelon wrote: post #882

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Targeted voter suppression campaigns have prevented people from voting who would have tipped the scales in favor of Democrats. And the Democrats have spun reasonable measures, such as requiring some sort of identification to vote, as "suppression", possibly so those who aren't citizens can vote. Who cheats more? Who knows. The low-hanging fruit for the Democrats is, however: 1) Prioritize lower/middle class economic…

No, in person voter fraud is well studied and considered so uncommon that it is a red herring. If it were truly considered a problem then mail in ballots would require some proof that the correct person voted. That's the low hanging fruit for vulnerability of voting, why isn't it fixed? You can't even catch the perpetrator! Because rural voters who support them would scream, they don't care about fixing the gaping se…

Saying that someone won the popular vote but not the election is identical to saying that someone won in the more densely populated area but lost in the more sparsely populated areas. It don't prove gerrymandering, which is the intent to arrange voting districts to manipulate elections. The intent is the key here and not the result.

Having seats allocated by area rather than population is an very old tactic to unify a large number of small provinces into a single nation. Rural voters votes need to still feel like its worth to vote, even if they are outnumbered by 10 to 1 to the voice and needs of the more populated areas. Similar how people view voting of third-party to be a wasted vote, so is it believed that people in low population areas would feel if election was purely based on the popular vote. This is not the definition of gerrymandering, but rather policy that is designed to prevent splintering of nations and civil war.

Did Roy Jones or his party rearrange the district to orchestrate a election win? If so then that is gerrymandering. If not then the idea of having voting districts rather than popular vote is really just the trade that happened a long time ago between low and high populated areas being applied to all levels.